By gaoling him you make him some sort of martyr for extremist right idiots...when in fact all he is an ill informed wanker

Whats notable about this case is how little impact it has had on the free speech debate. Who here even heard of Toben before reading this discussion? Not exactly martyrdom material is he? And the proof in the pudding is when the top legal officer himself can casually guarantee to the national press that holocaust denial will always be considered a crime under the racial discrimination act - without so much as a raised eyebrow from the media or anywhere else in the public sphere.

Whats notable about this case is how little impact it has had on the free speech debate. Who here even heard of Toben before reading this discussion? Not exactly martyrdom material is he?

Martyrdom usually implies death Gandalf. He was jailed for three weeks. He is not well known because his cause is unpopular with both sides, so tends to get ignored. No-one wants a Nazi as their champion. Yet that probably makes him the best demonstration of the core principles of freedom of speech, far better than Bolt.

You appear to be implying that his lack of popularity justifies his treatment. Is that the case?

Quote:

Can you show us the legislation than outlines the penalties, FD?

Read the other half of the sentence you quoted Karnal.

Quote:

You've asked that many times, and each time, I have told you I stand by my every word.

No you haven't. You have tried to weasel your way out of them by insisting they were:

Quote:

an accurate description at the time I used them in the context I used them

If that's not backpedaling and weasel words, I don't know what is. Can you tell us what has changed with time and context? Do you think perhaps that in a few weeks time it will no longer be a "blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind to say that Toben was jailed for denying the holocaust"?

Why are you afraid to offer your own opinion on the cause of the court order?

Quote:

Did Aussie say that? I haven't seen that quote.

Check the first page of the 18c thread Gandalf. He was demanding to know how 18c limits what people can say. If that doesn;t convince you, let's ask him and see what sort of tapdancing we get. Aussie, does 18c infringe on freedom of speech?

Quote:

I've already said Aussie's argument doesn't pass the common sense test and that he is playing silly semantic games, like you always do.

What you said was that I was also making a purely semantic argument in this thread. That is not true. You also claimed that Aussie's argument was a purely semantic one. Although he is now loathe to say it (or anything of substance), there is a meaningful argument behind the idiocy, just as with the moronic comments we have seen here from Raven, John Smith, Barnacle, Brian Ross, Karnal etc. They are all something along the lines of "18c does not limit freedom of speech because it was not the cause of Toben's jailing and you cannot quote the specific legislation that lays out the link between what 18c bans and the punishment for ignoring it". His "silly semantic games" have the express purpose of undermining freedom of speech.

You appear to be implying that his lack of popularity justifies his treatment. Is that the case?

Actually quite the opposite. My observation was made as an indictment to our society.

I think its highly dangerous that our passion for free speech seems to be contingent on how much we agree with the speech. And worse, we are being encouraged by the government who come straight out and tell us its perfectly ok to criminalise a particular historical argument.

What is interesting is we see here people engaging in this debate who were previously disengaged and are shocked that someone was actually gaoled for what amounts to a thought crime. Its good that they are shocked, but bad that they never heard about it before. For some reason this topic of holocaust denial never seems to come up when the discussion of free speech comes up. Especially strange when pro 18c advocates try to reassure the critics by pointing to 18d and assuring them that legitimate, intellectual debate is protected. But in this case it clearly isn't.

Like I said a little while ago, holocaust denial is very much a special category in this whole free speech debate - specifically categorised in the "racial vilification" basket. This is perverse, and people should be railing against it.

You appear to be implying that his lack of popularity justifies his treatment. Is that the case?

Actually quite the opposite. My observation was made as an indictment to our society.

I think its highly dangerous that our passion for free speech seems to be contingent on how much we agree with the speech. And worse, we are being encouraged by the government who come straight out and tell us its perfectly ok to criminalise a particular historical argument.

What is interesting is we see here people engaging in this debate who were previously disengaged and are shocked that someone was actually gaoled for what amounts to a thought crime. Its good that they are shocked, but bad that they never heard about it before. For some reason this topic of holocaust denial never seems to come up when the discussion of free speech comes up. Especially strange when pro 18c advocates try to reassure the critics by pointing to 18d and assuring them that legitimate, intellectual debate is protected. But in this case it clearly isn't.

Like I said a little while ago, holocaust denial is very much a special category in this whole free speech debate - specifically categorised in the "racial vilification" basket. This is perverse, and people should be railing against it.

Then, the practical remedy lies in your hands and that of FD. Get on your soapbox at the local Park on the week-end, spruik holocaust denial stuff, and see what happens.....if it is that important to either of you. I suspect it is not.

My own view is that Tobin was at least vaguely correct given he attempted (and failed) to put some limits on what he was 'denying' but it is not at all near and dear enough to my heart as it seems to be especially to FD, and to a lesser extent to you, Gandalf.

Tobin was jailed for a contempt of Court ~ he acknowledged that is why he was jailed, and he apologised (not for posting holocaust denial material) but for defying the Court Order.

Like I said a little while ago, holocaust denial is very much a special category in this whole free speech debate - specifically categorised in the "racial vilification" basket. This is perverse, and people should be railing against it.

Just like Islamophobia?

Quote:

Then, the practical remedy lies in your hands and that of FD. Get on your soapbox at the local Park on the week-end, spruik holocaust denial stuff, and see what happens.....if it is that important to either of you. I suspect it is not.

Just when I thought it could not get any dumber. You don't have to agree with people to support their freedom of speech Aussie.

Quote:

My own view is that Tobin was at least vaguely correct given he attempted (and failed) to put some limits on what he was 'denying' but it is not at all near and dear enough to my heart as it seems to be especially to FD, and to a lesser extent to you, Gandalf.

No-one here gives a f..k whether he was right Aussie. Again, you completely miss the point.

Just when I thought it could not get any dumber. You don't have to agree with people to support their freedom of speech Aussie.

I did not say you had to FD. What I said was that you could test it all out by spruiking denial material at the Park this week-end. I could not care less if you agree or not with the subject. I'm sure you could 'wing' it as part of a very practical social experiment. It would a good test of your resolve and that of 'Brandis.'

As Toben illustrates, you can be jailed if the HREOC escalates the matter to the federal court. Saying you cannot be jailed on the assumption you will agree to self censor in compliance with 18c does not meet the common sense test. Toben was jailed for denying the holocaust in contravention of 18c. 18c means you can now be jailed for exercising your fundamental human rights.

Do you support that Raven, or just offer idiotic excuses?

No it doesn't. You are either deliberately misinterpreting how the RDA works or you have no understanding of the law.

It is not a crime to breach 18c. The section says that it is unlawful for a person to do what is set out.

In law the term unlawful does not mean criminal, So while unlawful acts are prohibited by law, they are not a criminal offence under section 18C, which is in Part IIA of the Act. There is no offence under Part IIA of the RDA. There are no criminal sanctions attached to the conduct the Act is targeting. Nothing in the Act makes any form of vilification a criminal offence.

Section 26, which is in Part IV of the Act, says

Quote:

Except as expressly provided by this Part, nothing in this Act makes it an offence to do an act or agree with another person to do an act that is unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II or Part IIA.

Unlawful conduct is not illegal conduct. 'Unlawful' is conduct prohibited by law, an 'offence' is also conduct prohibited by law but at a more serious or higher level. There is a fundamental procedural difference – unlawful acts are pursued by the person or entity who is aggrieved, and illegal acts are pursued by the police in order to punish the perpetrator.

18C creates a form of civil liability Section 26 makes it clear that offending someone under section 18C is not a criminal offence.

Take Andrew Bolt, Bolt breached the Act but did not commit a crime.

Your friend Toben on the other hand did commit a crime but not by denying the Holocaust. Justice Branson ordered him to remove the material, he refused. Justice Lander said that Toben's behaviour amounted to criminal contempt.

Toben's original conduct, which contravened the Act itself, was not criminal.

Aussie, Raven, John Smith, Barnacle, Brian Ross and Karnal: would it be fair to say that you want Toben and his ilk to be silenced, and are willing to see them imprisoned to achieve this, but you realise on some level that it is wrong to imprison a person for their opinion, so you settle for the 'happy coincidence' that Toben was jailed for an unrelated contempt of court, creating a vacuum of causation around his imprisonment in order to allow you to ignore your own views on human rights? And the idiotic mental contortions you are posting here are the inevitable result of your dedication to maintaining this self delusion?

Quote:

Should he be compensated?

I think it would be right for the government to compensate him for the unjust legislation he became a victim of, but I would happily settle for getting rid of 18c.

Quote:

No FD, nothing like Islamophobia. Can you name any historical argument related to Islam that is automatically criminalised as 'racial vilification'? I can't.

Are you suggesting that the ten year process of imprisoning Toben was automated? Those cunning Jews and their unstoppable bureaucracy, eh? Going to jail may not be automatic, however your efforts to racialise certain criticisms of Islam are an automatic response and you will consciously fabricate references to race in order to make the argument.

Quote:

Your friend Toben on the other hand did commit a crime but not by denying the Holocaust. Justice Branson ordered him to remove the material, he refused. Justice Lander said that Toben's behaviour amounted to criminal contempt.

Toben's original conduct, which contravened the Act itself, was not criminal.

The escalation to the Federal court provides a mechanism to criminalise the nominally non-criminal. You are failing the common sense test Raven. You are correct that the original act was not a criminal offence at the time it was committed, however the criminal act and the original act were the same real activity. The escalation to the federal court allowed the HREOC to turn it into a crime. The criminal offence absolutely required the RDA and 18c to be found a crime. The federal court gave criminal backing to the nominally toothless HREOC. Toben proves that all the excuses offered by the apologists in defence of 18c - that 18d provides a get out of jail free card, that the act is civil and not criminal and therefor does not undermine fundamental human rights - are lies. You either self censor according to the will of the HREOC in enforcing 18c, or the pass you on the the federal court for imprisonment.

You are lying by suggesting he "did commit a crime but not by denying the Holocaust." He violated the court order by continuing to deny the holocaust via his website. To deny this link is to willfully stick your head up your arse. Saying that he had the opportunity to self censor in order to avoid jail does not change this. The judge ordered him to cease publishing his opinion. He committed a crime by continuing to publish his opinion. He was jailed for his opinion. No amount of spineless excuses can change that.

If you disagree, perhaps you can answer the question that Aussie is so scared of - what caused the court order?